Issue - meetings

FSD21031

The Head of Audit and Assurance summarised the report.

A review was required annually of the Council’s control and governance practices—this had to be compared with the relevant local government framework. In drafting the AGS (Annual Governance Statement), relevant officers from across the Council had been consulted—these included the CLT, Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Manager, Risk Management Group and the Director of Finance. 

The main significant governance issues arising in the AGS were:

·  Finance

·  Valuation of Fixed Assets

·  Impact of Covid 19 on service delivery

Members noted this was a comprehensive document that outlined much good practice. Key documents were referenced at the back of the AGS. The AGS would be examined by the External Auditors. The Committee was informed that the AGS had to be signed off by the Leader and the Chief Executive.

The Chairman asked if it had ever been the case that any problems had arisen after the External Auditors had looked at the AGS. The Head of Audit and Assurance replied that LBB had not experienced any issues in this regard.

A Member referred to the arrangements for meetings that were resolved by the Urgency Committee when the pandemic first started. She said that it had been promised that these arrangements would be reviewed in June 2020, but that this had not been the case. She further expressed concern that no mention was made of the increased spending limits granted to the Leader of the Council at that time. The Head of Audit and Assurance responded that as the document was still in draft form it could be amended if required.

A Member commented on the issue of procurement and said that it was unfortunate that the report was silent with respect to tenders and bids under £50k. He understood that the Council looked at cumulative totals as well as individual elements. The Member referred to the matter of what the report referred to as ‘continuing to reduce bureaucratic burdens’. He wondered if this was actually taking place and if so it would be good to include examples in the report.

A Member referred to the fact that the Council’s accounts had not been signed off for a few years. In his view, there did not seem to be enough urgency in resolving this matter, which he felt  needed to be expedited as soon as possible. It was not good for the reputational image of the Council to have no value for money assessment for three consecutive years.

A discussion took place around the issue and the protocols followed with respect to whistle blowing. The Head of Audit and Assurance commented that in some cases it would be appropriate for him to discuss whistle-blowing issues with the Monitoring Officer and with the Director of Finance. It would not always be appropriate to report back to the whistle-blower, if the matter related to another individual, but in some cases it was appropriate to report back to the manager of the relevant service. The Member asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77